Gee I'm sorry I'm picking on your favourite tool, but I just don't like it.
For instance, all of the refactoring is BUILT IN to the base install of Eclipse - no need to Google. Code complete in Eclipse will actually finish off my constructor or method calls properly. For instance, VS.NET will give me this.
Object obj = new System.Object
and make me type the final "()" at the end. Minor I know but annoying. Eclipse will write out the contructor call (and automatically add the package to the import list if it isn't there) and add the "()" at the end AND place my cursor between the brackets so I can add parameters, if needed.
I can't highlight a section of code and right click and select "Surround by try catch block" in VS.NET. I can in Eclipse (and Netbeans).
If I want to temporarily see only the editor, I double click the tab in Eclipse. Double click again and your back to the regular screen with all of the panes and tabs. This is out of the box functionality in Eclipse. Can I do that with VS.NET? Nope.
As for exceptions, perhaps its personal taste, but specifically having a method throw a specific exception is just good documentation. It means that in Eclipse, when I generate that try catch block above, the catch blocks can capture all of the declared exceptions for me, automatically. In VS.NET I have to guess or have found in some doc, that my call might throw an exception.
Sorry. I am much more productive and write much better code with Eclipse or Netbeans than VS.NET. Eclipse has cool plugins you have to Goodgle for as well, but all of the extras for editing code, like those I mentioned, are available out of the box, for free with Eclipse. These are only a few of the biggest annoyances.
I don't suppose that IDE you stopped using back in 2000 was J++ was it? Have a look at Eclipse and hope they start supporting C#...or just switch back to Java.
Gee, why don't I just use C++. All of those "features" you have listed are in ANSI C++.
Although I miss generics a bit (but not a whole lot), I have never actually missed using any of those ofther "features" in Java, which I have been doing for over 7 years.
BTW, I write in Java so I don't have to code "functional style"...if I want or need to do that I'll use C or C++.
Sorry, I see no use for closures, partial classes or a version of the STL.
I also don't think C# 1.0 is better than Java 1.4, but that's just my personal opinion.
"C# has a completely awesome IDE and a consistent and elegant language that hasn't been patched and tinkered with haphazardly a dozen times"
Wow. You must have low expectations. I cannot stand VS.NET. It has none of the refactoring and proper working code completetion tools that Eclipse and Netbeans has. I personally think its a horrid IDE.
As for the syntax of C#, when they get proper exception handling and stop allowing VB style code to enter in, I'll be happy.
Firstly, I was a Christian, so I am well aware of Christian thought. I grew up with this.
Second, I don't agree with your idea of Buddhism. Certainly there are metaphysical elements, but I can practice the 8-Fold Path and know the Four Noble Truths without any reference to said metaphysics. I am pragmatic, ethical and philisophical, not religious. I came to Buddhism after abandoning Christianity (and Theism in general) and being a full-blown atheist for many years. I used my observations of the world, of my own interactions with my fellow humans and logic. Then many years later, lo and behold, I discovered that those things I had come to know to be practical and true were the basic tenets of Buddhism. I have read scientific studies on the benefits of meditation. I have read papers on Game Theory and the book "The Evolution of Cooperation" and other studies which have provide evidence that these tenets are true and real. I don't accept them because I want to or because I like the idea of Nirvana or find it comfortable. I wieghed the evidence.
Like your description of Buddhism, I don't concieve of a "ghost in the machine" because I see no need for one. Things are the way they are. If they were different, they'd be different. All of this mystery and wonder can exist without a creator, with out a God.
I don't know if there is Nirvanna, rebirth or Heaven. I see no evidence for it because it is simply not possible for any living person to know or even have an inkling. On those who are dead "know" for sure. So, some people imply this existence - they want there to be an afterlife, they need there to be an afterlife. Or a greater power.
All of your eloquent words are premised on the belief in the existance of a God. They only make even the semblence of sense in that context. Without that belief, they mean nothing and don't make sense. All of your arguments simply miss the point - I don't care if part of the message is God became man to make us more like God, since in my view, there is no God. Your meaning of God is clearly the God of the Bible. Have you actually read the Bible, especially the Old Testament? God arbitrarily kills people left and right. He allows women and children to be killed and for soldiers of Isreal to keep virigns. He commands that babies be dashed on the rocks. He wipes out the world. He tortures Job. And as for free will, how free are we to choose when there is no real choice. "Worship me or I will condemn you to an eternity in fire" is hardly a choice. That's like holding a gun to someones head and demanding you give them the pin to your bank card or they'll shoot you. Is that a real choice? If you say no and are shot, is it your fault for saying no? An eternity of damantion is the ultimate duress and blackmail. Hardly just and loving God in my eyes. Saddam Hussien did many of the same things to his people that God did in the Bible. Were they right? Were they good? Or is it that whatever God does is good because God does it? Anyone else doing the same things would be immediatly labelled as evil, yet God is still good? Talk about circular logic and moral relativism.
I see Chritianity (or Islam or Hinduism or Pagansim any other theistic religionetc) as simply the latest version of age old superstitions and stories used by humans to explain the world around them. Why don't you worship Zeus? Or Thor? or Osiris? Dionysis? When you answer that question, you will know why I don't worship or accept the existance of your God or Jesus.
My biggest issue with Chritianity (since that has been my experience - if this was Iran I'd be writing about Islam) is the need to judge other and proselytise. It's not good enough that I have the same morals and ethics, the same values. I am not the same as a Christian. According to Christians, I cannot enter "heaven" because, despite my good deeds or works, I do not believe. And since I do not believe, I will burn in hell because, if I do not believe, I am evil. If I am a lesser human, and evil, and doomed to an eternit
Well, to be clear, the Buddhism I follow is more the philosophy or practice rather than a religion. I could care less about the metaphysical stuff.
Now, I will disagree with you about the message and the messanger. For me the message is most important and rooted in science - kindness, cooperation and altruism, non-violence are all the best survival strategy in evolution, even if on the surface it doesn't appear so. Love and compassion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the rest is just commentary". This is the message and the truth. Getting caught up that the message was delivered by Jesus or Zoroaster or Mohammed is irrelevant. Morality and ethics are constructs of evolution not God. The can be shown to exist without God or his alleged messangers. Saying the messagner IS the message is a cop-out by Christians to justify their beliefs. The message only needs the messagner. And message doesn't have to originate with a God.
Yet even if I believe all of the teachings of Jesus and follow them, yet do not believe in God or that Jesus even really existed, I am automatically evil, and, in Christianity, will spend eternity in hell. Even if I do just as much good as a Christian, or more.
"We cannot have an existence where Mohammad is God's prophet and where Jesus as the Word was the end of prophecy and where the Four Noble Truths are the ultimate truths"
Why not? This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. I am an athiest first. I don't believe there is a God because there is no evidence to support this conjecture. I follow the philosophy and practice of Buddhism second. Everything requires proof.
I could be wrong. If proved wrong, I will change my position. But I can be almost 100% certain that the God as described in the Bible does not exist. And if I were wrong and God exists and is the God of the Bible, I would happily spend eternity in hell becasue I would not subjugate myself to a vengeful, jealous, spiteful evil dictator.
I am sorry you need to believe in a God to appreciate the message. I need evidence.
So St. John was a dottering old fool who couldn't remember the correct date of the last supper, couldn't count the correct number of people who found the Empty Tomb or who they were? (The Gospel of John does not agree with any of the other Gospels on this)
Or was it Matthew, Mark and Luke that were wrong?
Isn't it odd that John is not mentioned at all in the other 3 gospels, even when the apparent authors of those gospels are supposed to ask him a direct question (according to John, that is)? The original book of John likely encompasses the fisrt 20 chapters, which are anonymous. Reading the ending:
John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Sound like the end to me? But wait! Suddenly, chapter 21 starts off "And then Jesus appeared again..."
It is only after this point that the role of John the "beloved disciple" appears.
The claims of St. Ploycarp are dubious - he was schooled by John when he was 10 in 80 CE and the Gospel was written after that? It was not until 180 CE that Ireneaus made the assertion that John was written by the apostle, in order to get it made canon. And that wasn't accepted for years and had to be defended (by the likes of Hippolytus)until well into past 235 CE. Some at the time claimed that it was written by a gnostic named Cerinthus.
But even simpler evidence is the writting itself. Would a Galilean fisherman, himself raised a devout Jew, following a man who was supposed to be messiah for the Jews (and not he gentiles), constantly refer to the "the Jews" as if they were a foriegn people? Sound like the work of a Gentile, not a Jew.
I won't even get into the fact that Justus of Tiberius, also a Jew and a histoian, born in Galilee in about 37 CE, makes no mention of this important person in any of his histories of the region or the Jewish people (he makes no mention of Jesus either, but I digress).
The very idea that the Gospel of John was written by John the appostle did not even take hold until around 180 CE. Even St. Polycarp (69 - 155 CE) that you mentioned, as well as other early church fathers like Ignatius (? to 110 CE) and Papias (60 - 130 CE) made no reference to the gospel of John at all. This means that the gospel was likely written closer to 140 CE. Is it concievable that Polycarp would mention that he was taught by John but not know of the Gospel?
Well, I do not practice Soto or any other Zen. I was a Christian and came to Buddhism through understanding. I believe, as the Buddha taught, not to accept anything on faith, but rather to test for myself. A rather scientific approach actually.
My problem is that Christians believe that only their's is the one true religion. Yet when asked for evidence, they say, no evidence is needed you only need faith.
You talk of "that we have the revealed Word of God as a Person in flesh", capitalization and all, as if it were fact. And if that helps you through you daily like that's wonderful. But I do not believe a person name Jesus even existed, let alone was the Son of a God I do not believe exists. There is simply no evidence of this, apart from the Bible. This does not make me immoral or unethical, it means I have choosen a different path (Dogen does not speak for all of Zen, let alone all of Buddhism, no matter what he would have liked). My path is just as meaningful and valueable as yours.
You are the exception not the rule when it comes to Christianity, if what you say is true. Trust me, I've been there. And I'm glad you help people with Christian understanding...as long as they ask for it. Preaching to the uncoverted or proseltyzing simply shows that you do not respect the beliefs of others and that you do believe you are better, by virtue of being a Christian. this is why I do not like Evangelicals and Missionaries. They will go to extreme, sometimes illegal and imoral lengths to convert people.
The biggest differnce between me and Christians is that I could care less if the Buddha ever actually existed. The story of his life and work may have happened and are great metaphors and allegories if they didn't. The 4 Noble Truths and the 8-Fold Path are a simple logical philosphy that enpowers me without the need for an external god or saviour. Christians on the other hand miss the point of the message being more important than the messanger. The idea that their saviour isn't part of a God to save them is terrifying. The idea that none of it was true is even more terrifying. They miss the point that much of the message is still relavant and good.
Apparrently that make me evil. I find the idea that ANYONE could pretend to know the mind of a God, the utmost hubris. To think that their holy book holds the metaphysical truth of the world and others do not. It is very possible I am correct and there is no God or Jesus. Likely in my opinion.
And now you have the answer when these yahoos ask the same question of Muslim -> "wWhere are the moderate muslims condemning the radicals\Terrorists hijacking their religion"
"1) The gospels are written by those in close proximity to or apostles. The Gospel of John is clearly written by John (the beloved apostle)."
Nope. John is dated from between 95 and 110 CE. To have been written by John, he would have to have been about 100 years old, which is hard for us, let alone in ancient Isreal, where life expectancy was about 45. It is gererally accepted that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, Luke and John being last. Mark is dated from around 70 CE. Mark and to a lesser extent Matthew are thought to have been drawn on a slighltly earlier text called Q which would date from as earlier as 60 CE.
The earliest known Christian writings are Pauls letters, probably from between 50 and 60 CE. These writtings make no mention of any of the more fantastic stories in the life of Jesus - virgin birth, miracles etc.
As for the "Church" being the version control system, well, read up on the Council of Nicea from 325 CE and see that political needs of orthodoxy often outwieghted historical accuracy.
"Contradictions in the synoptic gospels? Rubbish."
If only to be timely:
When was the last supper? What day? Who found the Empty tomb? When? How many people were there? How many angels where there? What did he\they look like? How many days did Jesus walk the Earth afterward? Where id the Sanhedrin meet? Who was there? What did Jesus say?
Now, read all 4 Gospels and try to get the same answers to all these questions from each one. I think you'l notice that John in particular is out of whack.
Then come back and say with a staight face there are no contradictions in the gospels.
BTW, feel free to check it out in several different translations of these books, just so you can't pull the "mistranslation" stuff on me.
That particular passage has actually been proven by many historian and scholars to be a "pious forgery" by the 2nd Century apololgist Esubius. The passage was written in about 90 CE and the earlier version of the text do not contain the paragraph. If read in context, the paragraph is completely out of charater for the rest of the book - kinda like finding a paragraph from Keruac in the middle of Shakespeare.
Not to mention that a non-christian Jew (which Josephus was) would NEVER refere to anyone, living or dead, as "The Messiah".
The Grand parent has been reading too much Josh MacDowell...
That's quite a lot a hubris in there. How do you know the Bible is God's instuctions book and that Jesus was his son? How do you know the Muslims aren't right? What if Mohammed was His prophet?
How do you know the true holy book isn't the Bagvangita? What if it's Vishnu you should be worshiping or listening to. After all, according to the Vedic scriptures, he was born of a virgin, died for our sins and was crucified. And he did it a few thousand years before Jesus.
How do you know any of this? Because the Bible said so?
If you wish to follow the teachings of Jesus, knock yourself out, he had many good teachings. Many of the same teachings as Buddha, Zoroaster, Confusious and even the Pagans like Socrates, Hippocrates and the ancient Egyptians ("I am the way, the light and the truth. No one shall get to the father except through me" - saying of the God Osiris, from about 3000 BCE). If you think you have cornered the market on truth, that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then you are going to be in for trouble.
BTW, isn't hubris one of the 7 deadly sins....how ironic.
So somebody comes up with what's essentially a myth, can't support it, and wants me to believe it? Right. I guess we can see why they needed the school system to get any following.
That is a perfect explanation of Creationism and "Intellegent Design". That we were created by God 6000 years ago is about as big a myth as I can think of.
BTW, your dictionary explaination of theory is nice, but in science represents a hypothosis, not a theory. A hypothosis may eventually become a theory when enough repeatable evidence, duplicated by researchers, is found or created experimentally. When a theoy predicts something and that data back up that prediction. Again, look at the links I previously provided for the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. If you would like first hand experience, get treatment in a hospital with a particularly nasty strain of defacile running around - its a particularly nasty bacteria that has evolved to be immune to anti-boitics. Evolution has all kinds of experimental and observational evidenced from a wide variety of disciplines.
Where is the evidence for creationism or ID? Nowhere but in the Bible, a collection of stories written over a 2500 year period by ancient middle eastern mystics. I will ask you, why don't you believe that the world was created when a giant cosmic turtle belched out the world? Why don't you believe that the world was created by Zeus and that Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders? Your answer to those is the reason I don't believe in the creation story in the Bible or in ID.
Evolution is about as "pseudo-science" as The Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Gravity.
Perhaps you should look up what a "theory" means in the scientific realm. Evolution has an ever growing body of evidence supporting it. Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as they like to call it, has no evidence supporting.
Gee spend the money through taxes and get free, UNIVERSAL, equal access to health care or spend it directly to a for-profit HMO or Insurance comapny and not be able to choose your doctor, your hospital and STILL have to pay more if shit isn't covered.
Hmmm, I'll pay the taxes thanks. Nobody in Canada is "uninsured" and must go to second rate charity hospitals.
BTW, up unitl about $60K, the tax burden is the same in both contries. While we continue to tax our rich, you let them keep their money, which, after more than 25 years, doesn't seem to be "trickling down".
Did I mention we had a $9 Billion dollar SURPLUS last year? How is that trillion dollar deficit anyway?
Did you actually read the posting you just replied to? You CAN'T do any of that stuff unless you specifically grant the applet permission to do it...by clicking yes on the dialog box.
An applet running inside a browser that has not been granted the permission can't access the hard drive and can only access a very small, circumscribed set of system variables...all of wich you can disallow in your Java policy file. An untrusted java applet cannot break out of the sandbox and cannot md5 fingerprint your PC.
Oh and since you have OSX, guess what...you run java fucktard.
No the prompt was from the JRE indicating that the applet that was being downloaded was asking for special privileges, beyond that of the sand box (see the picture in the middle of the Vital Security article). 3 excalimation marks, big and yellow, telling the user that it couldn't verify the authenticity of the applet, that the cert used to sign it had expired and then warned the user specifically to NOT say yes.
The idiot said yes anyway.
Now, if this happened without those warning, then there would be an issue. But that is not the case. The JRE functioned as it was designed to - to allow for extra privileges to be granted to an applet under certain circumstances and to vigorously warn the user and present them with information before hand. It was the user that ignored the warning, not the JRE.
Note to self: never get advice from "Vital Security" about security because anyone that would ignore that kind of warning from a site they did not know is definitely NOT a security professional
Uhm, If the idiot at VitalSecurity says 'Yes' when ask by the JRE if he wishes to run an untrusted applet, signed by and unknown party with a cert that appears to have been expired, how exactly is that a 'bug' in the JVM or the JRE? When you say 'Yes' you are explicitly granting the applet full access to your system. If you say no it will either run in the sandbox as expected (and thus be safe) or not run at all (and thus be safe). Does Sun need to include a FOURTH GIANT YELLOW EXCALMATION MARK in the dialog box before the user clues in? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the problem is the user not the JVM\JRE?
BTW, the other two vulnerabilites were fixed within about a day by Sun, so if you upgrade your JRE\JVM your safe.
No this is not really a Java issue either. This is a social engineering issue.
The JRE pops up it's "Warning" dialog, like its supposed to. It displays to the user that it cannot verify who signed this, that the cert is out of date etc, like its supposed to. It displays a warning reccomending that you NOT say yes and install the applet,like its supposed to. So when you ignore all of that and say yes, you deserve to get infected. I mean, what do you want, another dialog asking "Are you sure?".
I mean 3 big yellow exclaimation marks? I've never seen that even in the most unstable of development environments.
Oh and BTW, if you say yes to a Java applet in this instance, it runs as a local application without a security manager. This is not a 'hole' it is what it is supposed to do. When you say yes, that's what you're saying 'yes' to.
Now if people were taught not to do that the same way their are taught not to run arbitrary files sent to them via e-mail, this wouldn't be a problem. (That's sarcasm BTW)
In the end, the problem is the goof behind the keyboard that is willing to say 'Yes' to run applications they don't know about and that the JRE itself warns them at least 3 times in 3 ways not to run.
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
Subsection 3 even allows for the attachment of dissenting opinion.
Both Meech Lake and Charlottetown did not pass because they failed to meet the standards set forth in Section 38 - they were actually following the contitutional recipe for amendment.
So, in fact, your assertion IS FUD. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good arguement...
Actuallty, since the advent of video games, the rate of violent crime, including murder, has actually declined in the US and Canada - steadily every year for 20 years, in all demographics including youth crime. I beleive there have been a few minor blib years but the trend is obvious.
Funny how the anti-violent-game folks fail to bring up that particular statistic...
While I share your admiration, working with HIV is actually not all that dangerous to work with in a lab. HIV is, I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me), a Level 2 Pathogen since it cannot live outside its host and requires direct exchange of bodyfluids to be transmitted. It's deadly, but not particularly virulent and has a long incubation period. HIV needs some extra procedures for handling and washing up, but thats it.
Contrast with everyone's favorite Level 4 pathogen Ebola Zaire. Ebola Zaire can be caught through casual contact with an infected person or something they have touched (Ebola Reston is actually airborn, but only affects monkeys). It has a very short inclubation period and kills 90% of its victims, in about 10 days. This one is very virulent. Ebola Zaire needs an airtight, negative presure room and a person in a space suit to work with it.
I do like the creativiity of understanding the mechanism of one "enemy" to use against another....Sun Tzu would be proud...
Slashdot Mirror
No, I only have a license for VS.NET 2003. It's a bit expensive to upgrade ya know....
Maybe 2005 is better. It sure can't be worse.
oops, I'd better be careful, apparently not liking MS Development tools make you a Troll around here...
Gee I'm sorry I'm picking on your favourite tool, but I just don't like it.
For instance, all of the refactoring is BUILT IN to the base install of Eclipse - no need to Google. Code complete in Eclipse will actually finish off my constructor or method calls properly. For instance, VS.NET will give me this.
Object obj = new System.Object
and make me type the final "()" at the end. Minor I know but annoying. Eclipse will write out the contructor call (and automatically add the package to the import list if it isn't there) and add the "()" at the end AND place my cursor between the brackets so I can add parameters, if needed.
I can't highlight a section of code and right click and select "Surround by try catch block" in VS.NET. I can in Eclipse (and Netbeans).
If I want to temporarily see only the editor, I double click the tab in Eclipse. Double click again and your back to the regular screen with all of the panes and tabs. This is out of the box functionality in Eclipse. Can I do that with VS.NET? Nope.
As for exceptions, perhaps its personal taste, but specifically having a method throw a specific exception is just good documentation. It means that in Eclipse, when I generate that try catch block above, the catch blocks can capture all of the declared exceptions for me, automatically. In VS.NET I have to guess or have found in some doc, that my call might throw an exception.
Sorry. I am much more productive and write much better code with Eclipse or Netbeans than VS.NET. Eclipse has cool plugins you have to Goodgle for as well, but all of the extras for editing code, like those I mentioned, are available out of the box, for free with Eclipse. These are only a few of the biggest annoyances.
I don't suppose that IDE you stopped using back in 2000 was J++ was it? Have a look at Eclipse and hope they start supporting C#...or just switch back to Java.
Gee, why don't I just use C++. All of those "features" you have listed are in ANSI C++.
Although I miss generics a bit (but not a whole lot), I have never actually missed using any of those ofther "features" in Java, which I have been doing for over 7 years.
BTW, I write in Java so I don't have to code "functional style"...if I want or need to do that I'll use C or C++.
Sorry, I see no use for closures, partial classes or a version of the STL.
I also don't think C# 1.0 is better than Java 1.4, but that's just my personal opinion.
"C# has a completely awesome IDE and a consistent and elegant language that hasn't been patched and tinkered with haphazardly a dozen times"
Wow. You must have low expectations. I cannot stand VS.NET. It has none of the refactoring and proper working code completetion tools that Eclipse and Netbeans has. I personally think its a horrid IDE.
As for the syntax of C#, when they get proper exception handling and stop allowing VB style code to enter in, I'll be happy.
Oh wait, that language is called Java.
Well too each their own I guess. I'm doing C# ASP.NET development right now and I hate it.
I'm itching to get back to Java (which I'll be able to do in a few days).
I'm sorry but C# takes all the good stuff of Java, adds some of the bad stuff of C++ and tries to let you do the syntax of VB all in one place.
Not my cup of tea. I think Java is a far superior language and runtime.
Firstly, I was a Christian, so I am well aware of Christian thought. I grew up with this.
Second, I don't agree with your idea of Buddhism. Certainly there are metaphysical elements, but I can practice the 8-Fold Path and know the Four Noble Truths without any reference to said metaphysics. I am pragmatic, ethical and philisophical, not religious. I came to Buddhism after abandoning Christianity (and Theism in general) and being a full-blown atheist for many years. I used my observations of the world, of my own interactions with my fellow humans and logic. Then many years later, lo and behold, I discovered that those things I had come to know to be practical and true were the basic tenets of Buddhism. I have read scientific studies on the benefits of meditation. I have read papers on Game Theory and the book "The Evolution of Cooperation" and other studies which have provide evidence that these tenets are true and real. I don't accept them because I want to or because I like the idea of Nirvana or find it comfortable. I wieghed the evidence.
Like your description of Buddhism, I don't concieve of a "ghost in the machine" because I see no need for one. Things are the way they are. If they were different, they'd be different. All of this mystery and wonder can exist without a creator, with out a God.
I don't know if there is Nirvanna, rebirth or Heaven. I see no evidence for it because it is simply not possible for any living person to know or even have an inkling. On those who are dead "know" for sure. So, some people imply this existence - they want there to be an afterlife, they need there to be an afterlife. Or a greater power.
All of your eloquent words are premised on the belief in the existance of a God. They only make even the semblence of sense in that context. Without that belief, they mean nothing and don't make sense. All of your arguments simply miss the point - I don't care if part of the message is God became man to make us more like God, since in my view, there is no God. Your meaning of God is clearly the God of the Bible. Have you actually read the Bible, especially the Old Testament? God arbitrarily kills people left and right. He allows women and children to be killed and for soldiers of Isreal to keep virigns. He commands that babies be dashed on the rocks. He wipes out the world. He tortures Job. And as for free will, how free are we to choose when there is no real choice. "Worship me or I will condemn you to an eternity in fire" is hardly a choice. That's like holding a gun to someones head and demanding you give them the pin to your bank card or they'll shoot you. Is that a real choice? If you say no and are shot, is it your fault for saying no? An eternity of damantion is the ultimate duress and blackmail. Hardly just and loving God in my eyes. Saddam Hussien did many of the same things to his people that God did in the Bible. Were they right? Were they good? Or is it that whatever God does is good because God does it? Anyone else doing the same things would be immediatly labelled as evil, yet God is still good? Talk about circular logic and moral relativism.
I see Chritianity (or Islam or Hinduism or Pagansim any other theistic religionetc) as simply the latest version of age old superstitions and stories used by humans to explain the world around them. Why don't you worship Zeus? Or Thor? or Osiris? Dionysis? When you answer that question, you will know why I don't worship or accept the existance of your God or Jesus.
My biggest issue with Chritianity (since that has been my experience - if this was Iran I'd be writing about Islam) is the need to judge other and proselytise. It's not good enough that I have the same morals and ethics, the same values. I am not the same as a Christian. According to Christians, I cannot enter "heaven" because, despite my good deeds or works, I do not believe. And since I do not believe, I will burn in hell because, if I do not believe, I am evil. If I am a lesser human, and evil, and doomed to an eternit
Well, to be clear, the Buddhism I follow is more the philosophy or practice rather than a religion. I could care less about the metaphysical stuff.
Now, I will disagree with you about the message and the messanger. For me the message is most important and rooted in science - kindness, cooperation and altruism, non-violence are all the best survival strategy in evolution, even if on the surface it doesn't appear so. Love and compassion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the rest is just commentary". This is the message and the truth. Getting caught up that the message was delivered by Jesus or Zoroaster or Mohammed is irrelevant. Morality and ethics are constructs of evolution not God. The can be shown to exist without God or his alleged messangers. Saying the messagner IS the message is a cop-out by Christians to justify their beliefs. The message only needs the messagner. And message doesn't have to originate with a God.
Yet even if I believe all of the teachings of Jesus and follow them, yet do not believe in God or that Jesus even really existed, I am automatically evil, and, in Christianity, will spend eternity in hell. Even if I do just as much good as a Christian, or more.
"We cannot have an existence where Mohammad is God's prophet and where Jesus as the Word was the end of prophecy and where the Four Noble Truths are the ultimate truths"
Why not? This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. I am an athiest first. I don't believe there is a God because there is no evidence to support this conjecture. I follow the philosophy and practice of Buddhism second. Everything requires proof.
I could be wrong. If proved wrong, I will change my position. But I can be almost 100% certain that the God as described in the Bible does not exist. And if I were wrong and God exists and is the God of the Bible, I would happily spend eternity in hell becasue I would not subjugate myself to a vengeful, jealous, spiteful evil dictator.
I am sorry you need to believe in a God to appreciate the message. I need evidence.
Really?
So St. John was a dottering old fool who couldn't remember the correct date of the last supper, couldn't count the correct number of people who found the Empty Tomb or who they were? (The Gospel of John does not agree with any of the other Gospels on this)
Or was it Matthew, Mark and Luke that were wrong?
Isn't it odd that John is not mentioned at all in the other 3 gospels, even when the apparent authors of those gospels are supposed to ask him a direct question (according to John, that is)? The original book of John likely encompasses the fisrt 20 chapters, which are anonymous. Reading the ending:
John 20:30-31
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Sound like the end to me? But wait! Suddenly, chapter 21 starts off "And then Jesus appeared again..."
It is only after this point that the role of John the "beloved disciple" appears.
The claims of St. Ploycarp are dubious - he was schooled by John when he was 10 in 80 CE and the Gospel was written after that? It was not until 180 CE that Ireneaus made the assertion that John was written by the apostle, in order to get it made canon. And that wasn't accepted for years and had to be defended (by the likes of Hippolytus)until well into past 235 CE. Some at the time claimed that it was written by a gnostic named Cerinthus.
But even simpler evidence is the writting itself. Would a Galilean fisherman, himself raised a devout Jew, following a man who was supposed to be messiah for the Jews (and not he gentiles), constantly refer to the "the Jews" as if they were a foriegn people? Sound like the work of a Gentile, not a Jew.
I won't even get into the fact that Justus of Tiberius, also a Jew and a histoian, born in Galilee in about 37 CE, makes no mention of this important person in any of his histories of the region or the Jewish people (he makes no mention of Jesus either, but I digress).
The very idea that the Gospel of John was written by John the appostle did not even take hold until around 180 CE. Even St. Polycarp (69 - 155 CE) that you mentioned, as well as other early church fathers like Ignatius (? to 110 CE) and Papias (60 - 130 CE) made no reference to the gospel of John at all. This means that the gospel was likely written closer to 140 CE. Is it concievable that Polycarp would mention that he was taught by John but not know of the Gospel?
Not likely at all.
Well, I do not practice Soto or any other Zen. I was a Christian and came to Buddhism through understanding. I believe, as the Buddha taught, not to accept anything on faith, but rather to test for myself. A rather scientific approach actually.
My problem is that Christians believe that only their's is the one true religion. Yet when asked for evidence, they say, no evidence is needed you only need faith.
You talk of "that we have the revealed Word of God as a Person in flesh", capitalization and all, as if it were fact. And if that helps you through you daily like that's wonderful. But I do not believe a person name Jesus even existed, let alone was the Son of a God I do not believe exists. There is simply no evidence of this, apart from the Bible. This does not make me immoral or unethical, it means I have choosen a different path (Dogen does not speak for all of Zen, let alone all of Buddhism, no matter what he would have liked). My path is just as meaningful and valueable as yours.
You are the exception not the rule when it comes to Christianity, if what you say is true. Trust me, I've been there. And I'm glad you help people with Christian understanding...as long as they ask for it. Preaching to the uncoverted or proseltyzing simply shows that you do not respect the beliefs of others and that you do believe you are better, by virtue of being a Christian. this is why I do not like Evangelicals and Missionaries. They will go to extreme, sometimes illegal and imoral lengths to convert people.
The biggest differnce between me and Christians is that I could care less if the Buddha ever actually existed. The story of his life and work may have happened and are great metaphors and allegories if they didn't. The 4 Noble Truths and the 8-Fold Path are a simple logical philosphy that enpowers me without the need for an external god or saviour. Christians on the other hand miss the point of the message being more important than the messanger. The idea that their saviour isn't part of a God to save them is terrifying. The idea that none of it was true is even more terrifying. They miss the point that much of the message is still relavant and good.
Apparrently that make me evil. I find the idea that ANYONE could pretend to know the mind of a God, the utmost hubris. To think that their holy book holds the metaphysical truth of the world and others do not. It is very possible I am correct and there is no God or Jesus. Likely in my opinion.
And now you have the answer when these yahoos ask the same question of Muslim -> "wWhere are the moderate muslims condemning the radicals\Terrorists hijacking their religion"
Failure to condemn is tacit approval.
"1) The gospels are written by those in close proximity to or apostles. The Gospel of John is clearly written by John (the beloved apostle)."
Nope. John is dated from between 95 and 110 CE. To have been written by John, he would have to have been about 100 years old, which is hard for us, let alone in ancient Isreal, where life expectancy was about 45. It is gererally accepted that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, Luke and John being last. Mark is dated from around 70 CE. Mark and to a lesser extent Matthew are thought to have been drawn on a slighltly earlier text called Q which would date from as earlier as 60 CE.
The earliest known Christian writings are Pauls letters, probably from between 50 and 60 CE. These writtings make no mention of any of the more fantastic stories in the life of Jesus - virgin birth, miracles etc.
As for the "Church" being the version control system, well, read up on the Council of Nicea from 325 CE and see that political needs of orthodoxy often outwieghted historical accuracy.
"Contradictions in the synoptic gospels? Rubbish."
If only to be timely:
When was the last supper? What day?
Who found the Empty tomb? When? How many people were there? How many angels where there? What did he\they look like?
How many days did Jesus walk the Earth afterward?
Where id the Sanhedrin meet? Who was there? What did Jesus say?
Now, read all 4 Gospels and try to get the same answers to all these questions from each one. I think you'l notice that John in particular is out of whack.
Then come back and say with a staight face there are no contradictions in the gospels.
BTW, feel free to check it out in several different translations of these books, just so you can't pull the "mistranslation" stuff on me.
That particular passage has actually been proven by many historian and scholars to be a "pious forgery" by the 2nd Century apololgist Esubius. The passage was written in about 90 CE and the earlier version of the text do not contain the paragraph. If read in context, the paragraph is completely out of charater for the rest of the book - kinda like finding a paragraph from Keruac in the middle of Shakespeare.
Not to mention that a non-christian Jew (which Josephus was) would NEVER refere to anyone, living or dead, as "The Messiah".
The Grand parent has been reading too much Josh MacDowell...
That's quite a lot a hubris in there. How do you know the Bible is God's instuctions book and that Jesus was his son? How do you know the Muslims aren't right? What if Mohammed was His prophet?
How do you know the true holy book isn't the Bagvangita? What if it's Vishnu you should be worshiping or listening to. After all, according to the Vedic scriptures, he was born of a virgin, died for our sins and was crucified. And he did it a few thousand years before Jesus.
How do you know any of this? Because the Bible said so?
If you wish to follow the teachings of Jesus, knock yourself out, he had many good teachings. Many of the same teachings as Buddha, Zoroaster, Confusious and even the Pagans like Socrates, Hippocrates and the ancient Egyptians ("I am the way, the light and the truth. No one shall get to the father except through me" - saying of the God Osiris, from about 3000 BCE). If you think you have cornered the market on truth, that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then you are going to be in for trouble.
BTW, isn't hubris one of the 7 deadly sins....how ironic.
So somebody comes up with what's essentially a myth, can't support it, and wants me to believe it? Right. I guess we can see why they needed the school system to get any following.
That is a perfect explanation of Creationism and "Intellegent Design". That we were created by God 6000 years ago is about as big a myth as I can think of.
BTW, your dictionary explaination of theory is nice, but in science represents a hypothosis, not a theory. A hypothosis may eventually become a theory when enough repeatable evidence, duplicated by researchers, is found or created experimentally. When a theoy predicts something and that data back up that prediction. Again, look at the links I previously provided for the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. If you would like first hand experience, get treatment in a hospital with a particularly nasty strain of defacile running around - its a particularly nasty bacteria that has evolved to be immune to anti-boitics. Evolution has all kinds of experimental and observational evidenced from a wide variety of disciplines.
Where is the evidence for creationism or ID? Nowhere but in the Bible, a collection of stories written over a 2500 year period by ancient middle eastern mystics. I will ask you, why don't you believe that the world was created when a giant cosmic turtle belched out the world? Why don't you believe that the world was created by Zeus and that Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders? Your answer to those is the reason I don't believe in the creation story in the Bible or in ID.
Evolution is about as "pseudo-science" as The Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Gravity.
Perhaps you should look up what a "theory" means in the scientific realm. Evolution has an ever growing body of evidence supporting it. Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as they like to call it, has no evidence supporting.
Care to actually learn more?
Talk Origins
Panda's Thumb
Or how about a highschool biology text. Or do you live in Kansas?
Gee spend the money through taxes and get free, UNIVERSAL, equal access to health care or spend it directly to a for-profit HMO or Insurance comapny and not be able to choose your doctor, your hospital and STILL have to pay more if shit isn't covered.
Hmmm, I'll pay the taxes thanks. Nobody in Canada is "uninsured" and must go to second rate charity hospitals.
BTW, up unitl about $60K, the tax burden is the same in both contries. While we continue to tax our rich, you let them keep their money, which, after more than 25 years, doesn't seem to be "trickling down".
Did I mention we had a $9 Billion dollar SURPLUS last year? How is that trillion dollar deficit anyway?
Did you actually read the posting you just replied to? You CAN'T do any of that stuff unless you specifically grant the applet permission to do it...by clicking yes on the dialog box.
An applet running inside a browser that has not been granted the permission can't access the hard drive and can only access a very small, circumscribed set of system variables...all of wich you can disallow in your Java policy file. An untrusted java applet cannot break out of the sandbox and cannot md5 fingerprint your PC.
Oh and since you have OSX, guess what...you run java fucktard.
No the prompt was from the JRE indicating that the applet that was being downloaded was asking for special privileges, beyond that of the sand box (see the picture in the middle of the Vital Security article). 3 excalimation marks, big and yellow, telling the user that it couldn't verify the authenticity of the applet, that the cert used to sign it had expired and then warned the user specifically to NOT say yes.
The idiot said yes anyway.
Now, if this happened without those warning, then there would be an issue. But that is not the case. The JRE functioned as it was designed to - to allow for extra privileges to be granted to an applet under certain circumstances and to vigorously warn the user and present them with information before hand. It was the user that ignored the warning, not the JRE.
Note to self: never get advice from "Vital Security" about security because anyone that would ignore that kind of warning from a site they did not know is definitely NOT a security professional
Uhm, If the idiot at VitalSecurity says 'Yes' when ask by the JRE if he wishes to run an untrusted applet, signed by and unknown party with a cert that appears to have been expired, how exactly is that a 'bug' in the JVM or the JRE? When you say 'Yes' you are explicitly granting the applet full access to your system. If you say no it will either run in the sandbox as expected (and thus be safe) or not run at all (and thus be safe). Does Sun need to include a FOURTH GIANT YELLOW EXCALMATION MARK in the dialog box before the user clues in? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the problem is the user not the JVM\JRE?
BTW, the other two vulnerabilites were fixed within about a day by Sun, so if you upgrade your JRE\JVM your safe.
No this is not really a Java issue either. This is a social engineering issue.
The JRE pops up it's "Warning" dialog, like its supposed to . It displays to the user that it cannot verify who signed this, that the cert is out of date etc, like its supposed to . It displays a warning reccomending that you NOT say yes and install the applet, like its supposed to . So when you ignore all of that and say yes, you deserve to get infected. I mean, what do you want, another dialog asking "Are you sure?".
I mean 3 big yellow exclaimation marks? I've never seen that even in the most unstable of development environments.
Oh and BTW, if you say yes to a Java applet in this instance, it runs as a local application without a security manager. This is not a 'hole' it is what it is supposed to do. When you say yes, that's what you're saying 'yes' to.
Now if people were taught not to do that the same way their are taught not to run arbitrary files sent to them via e-mail, this wouldn't be a problem. (That's sarcasm BTW)
In the end, the problem is the goof behind the keyboard that is willing to say 'Yes' to run applications they don't know about and that the JRE itself warns them at least 3 times in 3 ways not to run.
How do you defend against that?
Uhm, I guess you've never actually read the Canadian Constitution then? The Constitution of Canada is not "rewritten", it is ammended, in accordance with the provisions laid out in Part V, as per section 38:
Subsection 3 even allows for the attachment of dissenting opinion.
Both Meech Lake and Charlottetown did not pass because they failed to meet the standards set forth in Section 38 - they were actually following the contitutional recipe for amendment.
So, in fact, your assertion IS FUD. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good arguement...
Actuallty, since the advent of video games, the rate of violent crime, including murder, has actually declined in the US and Canada - steadily every year for 20 years, in all demographics including youth crime. I beleive there have been a few minor blib years but the trend is obvious.
Funny how the anti-violent-game folks fail to bring up that particular statistic...
While I share your admiration, working with HIV is actually not all that dangerous to work with in a lab. HIV is, I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me), a Level 2 Pathogen since it cannot live outside its host and requires direct exchange of bodyfluids to be transmitted. It's deadly, but not particularly virulent and has a long incubation period. HIV needs some extra procedures for handling and washing up, but thats it.
Contrast with everyone's favorite Level 4 pathogen Ebola Zaire. Ebola Zaire can be caught through casual contact with an infected person or something they have touched (Ebola Reston is actually airborn, but only affects monkeys). It has a very short inclubation period and kills 90% of its victims, in about 10 days. This one is very virulent. Ebola Zaire needs an airtight, negative presure room and a person in a space suit to work with it.
I do like the creativiity of understanding the mechanism of one "enemy" to use against another....Sun Tzu would be proud...
**sniff, sniff***
Do you smell astro-turf?
Or is that just bullsh*t?